Orissa

Cuttak

CC/26/2018

Bijay Pratap Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Amazon Seller Services PVT Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R K Pattanaik & associates

10 Oct 2023

ORDER

            IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.26/2018

 

Sri Bijaya Pratap Singh,

S/o: Ram Pujan Singh,

C/o: Orissa Law Review,High Court Square,

Nimchouri,Cuttack-753002.

.                                       ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

1.       M/s. AMAZON Seller Services Pvt. Ltd.,

Having its Regd. Office At Brigade Gateway,

                  8^th Floor,26/1,Dr. Rajkumar Road,

                  Malleswaram(W),Bangalore-560055.

 

 

2.       Proprietor-Mobiles,

Anjenaya Infrastructure Project No.38 &39,

Soukya Road,Kacherakanahalli,

Hoskote Taluka,Bangalore Rural District,

                   Bangalore-560067,Karnataka,India

 

3.       Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

Xiaomi Technology Pvt. Ltd.,

                Marathahalli,Sarajpur,Outer Ring Road,

                Bangalore,Karnataka-560103

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    16.02.2018

Date of Order:  10.10.2023

 

For the complainant:           Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P no. 1:                   Mr. A.Tripathy,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps no.2 & 3:                              None.

         

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

          Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased a mobile phone set from O.P no.1 through online on 20.4.2017 having model no.Redmi 4A (Gold,16 GB), Sl.no.IMEI/86522032528261.  The said mobile phone set had a warranty for 12 months from the date of purchase.  Few days after such purchase, the complainant noticed a hairline crack on the LCD screen which gradually was widened and the touch screen of the said mobile phone did not function properly.  The fact was immediately informed by the complainant since because the said defect was noticed within 6 to 7 months of the purchase and was well withing the warranty period.  The complainant has alleged through his complaint petition that the manufacturer in connivance with the other O.Ps had sold him a defective product which had manufacturing defect.  The complainant had issued legal notice to that effect to the O.Ps on 14.11.17 and when no result yielded, the complainant had to file his case before this Commission seeking cost of the mobile hand set including charges to the tune of Rs.5998/- alongwith interest thereon @ 12% per annum effective from 20.4.2017 till the total amount is quantified and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for his mental agony and harassment with further sum of Rs.5000/- towards his litigation expenses.

          Alongwith his complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Out of the three O.Ps as arrayed in this case, having not preferred to contest this case O.Ps no.2 & 3 have been set exparte vide order dated 30.5.2018.  However, O.P no.1 has contested this case and has filed his written version.  As per the written version of O.P no.1, it is only one e-commerce online platform thereby enabling the buyer and the seller to have their trade and thus he is no way liable here in this case.  He has relied upon certain decisions to that effect which are as follows: -

i.          The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Kent RO Systems Ltd. & Anr. V. Amit Kotak & Ors.,CS(COMM) 1655/2016 vide order dated 18.1.2017, has succinctly pointed out that the provisions of the information Technology Act,2000(IT Act”) and the Rules framed thereunder do not obligate an intermediary to, of its own screen all the content being posted on its portal for infringement of any rights or laws.

ii.         The Hon’ble State Commission in the case of ASSPL Vs. Jaskaran Singh & Anr.(F.A.No.86/2017 decided on July,17,2017.

iii.        The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523 held that an intermediary would be liable only if it fails to take down online content despite receipt of “actual knowledge” of infringement or violation through a court order intimating the same.

iv.         The Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the matter of Vinay Narain Vs. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. & Orsk case no.270/2010 decided on 215.2015 had held that “the O.P no.3 is neither a necessary or a proper party as it has nothing to do with the quality of the product.

 Accordingly, it is the contention O.P no.1 through his written version to dismiss the complaint petition as filed against him with exemplary cost.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P no.1, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

 

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

After perusing the complaint petition, the written version, the copies of available documents and the written notes of submissions filed from either side, it is noticed that infact the complainant had purchased a mobile hand set through O.P no.1 for a consideration of Rs.5998/- on 22.4.2017.  He had also written to the O.Ps as regards to the non-functioning of his mobile hand set on 14.11.17.  It is not disputed that the said purchased mobile hand set had warranty for a period of 12 months from the date of its purchase.  Thus, as it appears here in this case, when some defects were noticed by the complainant in his mobile phone, he had tried to get it repaired but all the O.Ps had turned a deaf ear to such complaint of the complainant.  Such wilful negligence on the part of the O.Ps especially by O.Pno.1 who had tried to slip away from shouldering any responsibility here in this case, imbibes this Commission comes to an irresistible conclusion that infact all the three O.Ps are found to be jointly and severally liable and are thus deficient in their service by not responding to the complainant in order to repair the mobile hand set of the complainant.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the complainant.

 

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is undoubtedly maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                              ORDER

The case is decreed on contest against O.P no.1 & exparte against O.Ps no.2 & 3 who  are jointly and severally liable here in this case.  Thus, the O.Ps are directed to refund the cost of the mobile hand set of the complainant i.e. Rs.5998/- to him alongwith interest thereon @ 8% per annum with effect from 24.4.2017 till the final payment is made.  The O.Ps are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant towards his mental agony and harassment together with another sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost of his litigation. This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 10^th day of   October,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.  

                                                                                      

                                                                                           Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                    President

                     

                                                                                                              

                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                          Member